And I predict it will not go well.

I cut off the premium cable channels decades ago.  I am down to Amazon Video, BluRay/DVD* and Youtube for most of my visual entertainment. We do have Comcast, but it is mostly for the few classic TV shows and movie channels my MiL loves, otherwise, I would kill the service.

(*): It is amazing how many good movies and series can be found in the discount bins of Walmart and in EBay. And you get to keep them!

NYC Mayor says illegal aliens could solve lifeguard shortage because they’re ‘excellent swimmers’ pic.twitter.com/VwPmPLKob6

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) May 14, 2024

Talk about prejudiced images of people. I am still trying to figure out if he thinks the swam across the Rio Grande or the Florida Strait to get to NYC.

And the Mississippi too.

And when they finished their lifeguard duties, he probably expects them to deliver him food in between mowing lawns.

Democrats: because Slavery is now called Compassionate Sanctuary.

DENVER (KDVR) — A new billboard along Alameda Avenue and Pecos Street is causing a stir in Denver.

The Laramie County Sheriff’s Office in Wyoming paid for the billboard to recruit deputies while throwing shade at Denver leaders.

In an exclusive interview, FOX31’s Talya Cunningham asked the sheriff about his decision to make the billboard. Sheriff Brian Kozak stands by his decision to cross state lines and pay $2,500 to put up this message on a billboard in Denver, “Work in Wyoming where breaking the law is still illegal and cops are funded.”

It’s National Police Week, and this billboard went up on Sunday, sending a clear message.

Kozak said they’ve been successfully recruiting in Denver for some time now, and this is all part of a marketing campaign.

Wyoming sheriff recruiting Denver officers with controversial billboard | FOX31 Denver (kdvr.com)

Denver is the L.A. of the Rockies, so nobody is actually surprised that they do Liberal crap on local LEOs.

The sheriff’s office posted the billboard on social media with a caption that reads in part, “National media reported the City of Denver, on the other hand, decided to defund the police $8 million to fund immigrant shelters and restrict the ability for cops to enforce traffic laws…”

That does not surprise anybody. nor the response from the Denver leaders that sound like your standard CYA Doublespeak.

The city, however, is punching back.

Denver Mayor Mike Johnston’s office responded, saying in part, “The Denver Police Department’s budget was carefully crafted with safety leaders and Mayor Johnston to ensure there would be no impact to the department’s public services. To say that Denver is ‘defunding the police’ is a willful mischaracterization of the budget reductions.”

At the end, who do you believe? The Leaders of Denver or…

It appears the marketing tactic may be working. The sheriff said they’ve already received 40 new applications.

I think the only controversy is the BS faux story.

Bruen slapped down the inferior courts that were using interest balancing to deny The People their rights. As Judge VanDyke pointed out, from the time of the Heller opinion, the Ninth Circus court has not found a single regulation to be unconstitutional.

Interest balancing takes place at the time a regulation is passed or ratified. When The People ratified the Second Amendment, and the rest of the Bill of Rights, The People performed interest balancing and the result was the Bill of Rights.

The People, having looked at the Constitution, as passed, decided it wasn’t fully to their liking. They then used the methods of laid out within the Constitution to amend the Constitution.

When the NFA was passed, the state explicitly acknowledges the right of the people to keep and bear arms. They knew that it was unconstitutional to limit The People’s right to keep any arm they wished. To bear any arm they wished.

Instead, they looked to “balance” the authority of the state to tax with the right of The People to keep and bear arms. Since the state had the authority by the constitution, they hoped to finagle the NFA past the courts.

The original district court heard the Miller case and found for the defendant. The NFA was unconstitutional, on its face.

Miller had bad facts. Miller was a bad man who did bad things. The law-abiding citizen would want him imprisoned. The criminals he associated with would want him dead.

At this time, it is strongly believed that Miller was murdered by his criminal associates.

The congressional hearings emphasized that all involved with the NFA knew it was an infringement.

Regardless, the Supreme Court issued their opinion in Miller and we were stuck. This case allowed for more civilian disarmament regulations.

From that point forward, the infringing assholes searched for methods to weasel around the Second Amendment.

This took the form of attempting to transfer the rights protected by the Second Amendment from The People to the state. This worked. They used interest balancing to allow the courts to override the decisions of The People.

Remember, all interest balancing regarding the Second Amendment was completed in 1791 when it was ratified.

The state does not want simple. The more complex the “rules” are, the easier it is for them to create an infringement.

Years ago, I owned an Internet Service Provider. My partner at the beginning wanted to make the rules of conduct. He started listing all the things that people were not allowed to do.

I threw it all away. “Be Good. If you do bad things, we will charge you for cleanup at $75/hour and at our discretion drop you as a customer. If you send SPAM, you will be charged $2000 + $75/hour for cleanup. Final decisions are ours.”

We didn’t have a single person object to the rules. We used the SPAM rule once. Guy got charged $5000. We didn’t get the money, but the credit agencies went after him like mad.

Our Constitution was written the same way. The government is given authority to do some things. If they are not granted that authority by The People, they are not allowed to do that thing.

The first 10 Amendments are also simple. Don’t abridge The People’s right to speak or assemble. Don’t infringe on The People’s right to keep and bear arms.

The state wants to make it complicated.

Bruen said that the inferior court’s two-step method was wrong. That there should be only one step.

The state is attempting to make it a two-step method, again.

Judge Wood in her malice and aforethought wrote an opinion that said something like “Haha! Look at the idiots on the Supreme Court. They said no more two-step processes, and then created a two-step process”

The Supreme Court did not create a two-step process in Heller, nor did they create one in Bruen.

They created a question and a single step.

While I know that many idiot liberals can’t answer simple questions anymore, “What is a woman?”

You can see this in any testimony from a liberal in congress. Listening to Education Secretary Miguel Cardona refuse to answer Representative Bob Good is a perfect example:

The Keep It Simple, Stupid (K.I.S.S.) principle is what should be applied to the question part of Bruen

Does the individual’s conduct implicate the plain text of the Second Amendment?

This is a question, it is not a step. It does not require an expert. It does not require any significant analysis.

I have made the joke observation in the past, “If Brady, Giffords or Everytown is interested in the case, it implicates the Second Amendment.”

That is too simple of a test for our courts. On the other hand, I would love it if the mere fact that an anti-gun group spoke up was enough to clarify that the Second Amendment was implicated.

There are three questions that need to be answered in the affirmative to implicate the plain text of the Second Amendment.

1. Is it an arm?
2. Is the individual a member of The People?
3. Does the individual wish to keep or bear arms?

That is it. If you answer yes to all three, the question is answered. Any honest Judge can answer these three questions.

Once the plain text of the Second Amendment is implicated, the burden shifts to the state, which must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation—New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. V. Bruen, 142 S.Ct. 2111 (U.S. 2022)

When answering the question, it is not “is this individual virtuous?” It is, “is this person part of The People?”. It is not about law-abiding, nor is it about how dangerous an arm is. It is not about how common the arm is, nor is it when the arm was invented.

To be very, very, blunt, if somebody wished to carry a nuclear weapon, that is conduct that the Second Amendment’s plain text covers.

The burden then shifts to the government to demonstrate that their infringement is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

It is unlikely that the courts would overturn a ban on The People keeping and bearing nuclear weapons. They would argue that nuclear weapons are particularly dangerous and that they are not in common use.

So when you hear some moron arguing about the meaning of the plain text, just call them out as stupid, ignorant, and dishonestly malicious.

An encampment that is flying under the radar but is very fortified is the one at California State University, Los Angeles. You can even hear a drill whirl as activists reinforce the CSULA wall. pic.twitter.com/STvgPWIRn4

— Stu (@thestustustudio) May 13, 2024

I see that enclosure and fortification is not precisely a word that comes to mind. I believe they have watched too many Instagram videos of dumb builders doing stuff with pallets and they thought it would translate to their little fort.

One asshole with a Bic and their pretentions will go up in smoke.

I wanted to get back to competition shooting, but it seems Middle TN does not have an active club that runs either IDPA or USPS that I could find. There are allegedly clubs over an hour away from the Boro, but the one I checked turned out to be 3 guys showing up to bullshit about everything and anything rather than a formal match.

About the only competition is over Outpost Armory, but it is one Thursday afternoon a month and I am working then.

“Why don’t you start your own club?” Because it is not cheap, I am done working for free and people who work matches rarely get to shoot in them. If I am not going to shoot, I rather save the aggravation and money.

Anyway, I guess I will have to trespass over my BiL and SiL, set up some targets and send some lead in their property one of these days.

Without shooting the horses.

Something light:

or: